Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 05, 2013 @10:03PM
from the victim-belt dept.

Flash Modin writes "The observatory where Pluto was discovered is pushing to name an asteroid after a black teenager killed in a controversial confrontation in Florida last year. William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with the cause of African American rights, and thus an asteroid named after Trayvon Martin is perfectly appropriate. Putnam is the sole trustee of the observatory, which was founded by Percival Lowell during his search for canals on Mars. Astronomers at the observatory discovered the asteroid in 2000, but it has not been formally named. Putnam has already asked the Minor Planet Center once to designate the asteroid 'Trayvon,' but they told him the designation was 'premature.' Now that there's been a verdict, the observatory is reapplying in hopes the naming body will see things different."

No, otherwise I'd be a freaking circus. Remember, the names of these planets/asteroids will have to be used by the Scientific Community for serious work. I'd be a distraction to have deal with writing reports on planet LoLKatz6990 and asteroid belt CASH$MON$YHitlerBabez8888

I have read the Trayvon v. Zimmerman case fairly extensively. I can't pick sides because I found bad judgement in the actions of Martin and Zimmerman.What I really dislike about the whole thing are these agent provocateurs who have nothing to do with it and who are using this as a political indictment against Black or White people. Racism is still a big thing in America. People have died because of it. They will stop at nothing until they light up the fire of another bloody racial conflagration.

I agree, both of them failed to pick the safest possible path. GZ should have stayed in his truck, and he should have looked the other way. TM should have walked directly home. They haven't done that. However none of what they actually did - until the first blow landed - was illegal. They were not accused of walking the public streets; they were not accused of looking at people; they were not accused of talking to each other. All that is legal. (Well, GZ was actually accused of that because the DA wanted to hit him with crime of racism; but that was unfair, and it didn't work.)

Being not exceptionally careful is not a crime. You aren't careful if you choose to walk through a ghetto at midnight. But it's your right - and if you survive you won't be put on trial. All actions of GZ and TM were legal - until TM struck. That's when legality ended, and that's what got TM killed. TM would be killed just as well if he walked up to any stranger and hit him in the face. The preceding actions may have contributed to anger, or fear of disrespect, that TM seemingly had. But those actions are just as legal for them as for a man to follow a woman in a dark alley. They just go in the same direction. A woman may be scared; but legally it means nothing; she is not entitled to, for example, turning around and throwing a knife at the man. Trayvon may have been upset, but that gave him no special right to assault anyone. He held a phone in his hand all the time - he could have called 911 at any time if he had a genuine fear. He, an active football player, could have outrun pretty much anyone and be at home within seconds. There are many paths TM could have taken that don't include hitting people in the face and then trying to murder them.

The problem with the "blame the victim" charge for drunk rape victims is that this has been used against alleged perpetrators when there was no rape.Drunken rape really has two scenarios, that some advocates unfairly treat as equal:1) woman goes out, gets drunk, says no, is forced -- actual rape2) woman goes out, gets drunk, goes home with guy, regrets it in the morning when sober, cries rape -- not actual rape

You are wrong, maybe not technically but in theme. Being careless can and in many cases should be a crime. No drunk driver intends to kill anyone.

Zimmerman is certainly NOT guilty of any aggravating circumstances and I can even believe that he is probably a basically good person who intended to do the right thing. The basic problem is his behavior was reckless and in a way that was clearly dangerous to other people.

When a policeman confronts a person he clearly identifies himself for a reason. He is say

Even if the kid hadn't been a dope-smoking, fight-starting, gangsta-wannabe thug who lacked the foresight to consider the lack of wisdom in physically attacking a random stranger in a southern state with both concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws in effect, what scientific potential did he embody (forget actually accomplish) to warrant his name being carried into astronomic posterity?

Even if your ugly characterization is accurate that doesn't actually make his death something other than a tragedy.

Though I agree that giving asteriods politically charged names is generally a bad idea.

Even if your ugly characterization is accurate that doesn't actually make his death something other than a tragedy.

People make bad decisions which can cost them their lives, and in a sense its a tragedy, yes, but not a tragedy in the sense that "we have to make sure noone can defend themselves with lethal force".

That's the problem with the "Trayvon" designation for the asteroid, it has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin. It's just a way to signal that you're against racial profiling and guns if you think Zimmerman is guilty, or a way to signal that you believe in self defence and gun rights if you think Zimmerman did the right think. Only two people really know what happened, one of them is dead, and no one really cares anyway except as a proxy in a political debate.

What is funny about your statement is how you threw dope-smoking in there. You used it in a very negative way as to say that smoking pot somehow criminalizes him and your comment gets modded insightful. Meanwhile when a pro-pot legalization article hits/. everyone is talking about how great pot is, how it should be legalized and how they smoke it all the time and get modded insightful.

Am I missing something here?

But I do agree with your statement. That case was blown WAAAAAAY out of proportion. If the skin

I might be wrong, but I don't think Zimmerman even knew what race Trayvon Martin was before Martin jumped him.

Whatever might be said of Zimmerman, he didn't follow the kid because he was black. People made poor choices and somebody paid with their life. It's a tragedy, but to turn it into a race issue does a tremendous disservice to all the great people who have worked hard and sacrificed so much to advance civil rights in this country.

Checking the transcript, it seems Zimmerman identified him as "looks black" - nonetheless, I believe the testimony was that he didn't know Martin's race when he started following him. He only knew for sure when Martin turned to confront him the first time as he was on the phone with the dispatcher.

"Amateur Cop" is a thing in the US. Zimmerman was part of a police-sponsored neighborhood watch program, in which people take it upon themselves to... well, watch the neighborhood. The opening of this whole thing is that he saw a guy that "looked suspicious" (for whatever reason), got out of his car, and followed at a distance. That's pretty normal.

The "At a distance" thing is important, and something a lot of people missed. Trayvon turned down a street and went south; Zimmerman passed that street heading east, watching to see where Trayvon was going while reporting to the dispatcher. What Zimmerman was not doing was following Trayvon down the road in the shadows, inching closer, trying to get a bead on the little black kid; everyone wants to perpetuate this "stalking an innocent teenager" thing anyway, but that's not what happened.

What happened after that is less understood. Somehow Trayvon got to his house (south), then came back 100 meters (north) and a confrontation occurred. This became a physical altercation, which ended with Zimmerman shooting Trayvon to death. The murder argument comes down to an argument over whether or not Zimmerman was being beaten to death (or reasonably believed he was being beaten to death)--this is why you keep hearing that Trayvon was "armed with concrete" and smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.

Zimmerman had a permit to carry a gun because he's a shitty fighter. If he wasn't such a useless lump of shit, maybe he could have fought back and controlled the situation. He's lucky Trayvon didn't just take his gun and shoot him to death with it. Non-US people might find the concept of regular citizens carrying guns a little displacing--it's not a thing people do in England, for example--but in the US, people actually carry guns in case they're attacked. Beyond that, shooting Trayvon to death is just the natural result of being in a situation where he thought he was gonna die--that is, the natural action is to try to not die, and the only capable way he could think of to not die was to kill Trayvon.

Everything between the confrontation and the death is unclear. Fortunately for Zimmerman (and the rest of us), because nothing here screams "violent premeditated or negligent homicide", the only rational thing to do is accept "self-defense" and move on. Unfortunately, people are not rational and start screaming for blood, trying to blame Zimmerman while dismissing the very real and strong possibility that he was, in fact, going to die if he didn't shoot Trayvon right there. So we have this mess.

I don't understand the "Civil Rights" involved. They say Trayvon's rights were violated. What rights? He was observed in public; if he wasn't doing anything bad, the police wouldn't have even been able to search him. He could have 20 pounds of cocaine and stolen jewelry on him, and the cops could show up like "we heard reports of a suspicious person," and he's like "Everything's alright here," and they're like "Can we search your bag?" "No." That's it. Nothing actually happening here? The cops don't even get to frisk you. Other people are entitled to observe you, the police are entitled to pass through the neighborhood and ask you if you're alright and whatever, but if you're not obviously committing a crime (even if you really ARE, but it's not visible and they have no probable cause to assume you're a criminal) then they can't do shit. You could have burglary tools and a bomb in your backpack and they can't even check it to make sure you just have school books (unless somebody reported seeing you using burglary tools to try to break into somewhere).

I guess the only civil right here might be the right to, you know, not get shot to death; and you immediately waive that right when you're in the process of murdering someone.

A couple of things you may not know. Zimmerman's great grandfather was black (50 years ago that would have made Zimmerman black). If the ethnicity of Zimmerman's parents had been reversed (and thus his last name been Mesa rather than Zimmerman) this story would never have made anything other than local news. This story is an example of racial profiling...by the news media, which assumed that George ZImmerman was a white racist of primarily German descent, rather than a Hispanic of mixed descent (including A

When an unarmed black kid is being stalked by someone like you they are just supposed to say yes sir massa sir or you feel entitled to kill them for not knowing their place.
I hope that you tell any women out there that if they are being stalked by someone like you that they should just lay back and enjoy it. Otherwise you'll have to kill them and claim you were just standing your ground.

The "stand your ground" law never entered into the Martin-Zimmerman situation on the street, or in the courtroom as a matter of law. You seem to be fixated by the idea of it despite the fact it is irrelevant. You may want to consider counseling if you can't stop thinking about it. The thoughts you are expressing don't really seem appropriate.

Holy fuck a court of law enforcing the law based on the laws! Where are we people? This is the United States of America, we stand for mob justice and only caring about rights when we feel like it. We need to go to war with Florida to show them that in this country, we take acting like a stupid fuck and talking about shit that we know nothing about seriously.

Anyway, SYG was never mentioned, it was pure self defense. The worthless thug attacked first and wouldn't have let the fat one withdraw even if he had

Anyway, SYG was never mentioned, it was pure self defense. The worthless thug

Dehumanizing the victim makes things simplerIt's like breathing with a respiratorIt eases the conscience of even the most conscious and calculating violatorWords can reduce a person to an object something more easy to hateAn animate entity, completely disposableNo problem to obliterateBut death is the silence in this language of violence(Franti)

attacked first and wouldn't have let the fat one withdraw even if he had wanted too.

Zimmerman stalked him and we'll never know what he said to him. Jump to the end: only half the scum ended up dead.

Jesus fucking christ. Your country's economy is in the toilet, your president has broken laws both at home and abroad, your government gets its diplomats killed and then shrugs it off, there are drones everywhere spying on you, all your telephone and internet communications are being listened to, your are on the verge of risking a real war with Russia over Syria, AND THIS IS THE FUCKING SHIT YOU GET MAD ABOUT? American are hopeless. Enjoy your Orwellian future.

You show a wondrous ability to withstand the fact that he was accosted and provoked by an armed man older than him. [...] defending himself against an unknown armed assailant

A good part of the reason Zimmerman was acquitted was because of the lack of evidence for all these lazy-ass assertions.

Also, this is the first claim I've heard of age being a dominant (much less a useful) factor in a fist fight. I'm even older than Zimmerman. Does that mean I'd trounce Trayvan or for that matter Zimmerman? Doesn't look like it to me. I think I'd be smoothing concrete with my face.

Instead, I think I'd be using what wisdom I've managed to scrape up to try not get into situations like t

A good part of the reason Zimmerman was acquitted was because of the lack of evidence for all these lazy-ass assertions.

I think we're far past the point where anyone's the least bit interested in evidence. Instead, everyone who talks about this case simply makes up stuff - often ludicrously detailed - to support their own notions, often twisted by insane troll logic (no, you don't really want Zimmerman to be the poster boy for gun rights, now do you?).

Which is why I think this asteroid should be named "Trayvon-Zimmerman". Human capacity for self-deception certainly deserves a monument, and if irony is on our side archeologists in a few (dozen) generations might well promote it to an actual Greek god.

Putting aside the fact that Martin was a racist thug who got killed by someone in self defense...and that merely bringing his name and media/court situation up he was involved in that is currently still getting people across the country all pissed off at each other if its even discussed...and that this is probably just an attention-whore publicity act...and that I doubt he had much to do in the field of the sciences...what was I talking about?
Oh, yeah let's name an asteroid after him. Whatever.

some mouth breathing moron thinks he has a right to walk around with a gun

He does. Someone should re-read the constitution, and the law in florida. Just because YOU have contempt for your rights, doesnt mean the courts do.

play cop

He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins. Come on, this was widely reported.

innocent civilians

Yes, heres the thing, a jury found that Martin WASNT innocent, and that there was grounds for a plea of self-defense. That, too is a right that citizens have.

laws that somehow support this disgusting behavior

Most societies that you would want to live in have both an adversarial court system, and a defense for killing on the grounds of self-defense. Thank goodness that is the case here. What laws, specifically are you thinking of-- hopefully not the "stand your ground" law which had absolutely no relevance to the case?

stand your ground laws, carry/ conceal laws: they have to go

Ah, yes, you were, which indicates you were successfully distracted by the media in a discussion on irrelevant laws. Look through the court transcripts and see if "stand your ground" had any relevance: You will find it did not. The issue at stake was whether Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin in self-defense.

You seem to have bought into the race-card-Zimmerman-was-a-racist story that was spun up by the media, so I really suggest you go back and look at the facts, not the op-eds and commentary that was spun up around the whole issue. The amount of bias that came out in this whole ordeal was astounding, from the doctored recordings, to the doctored photos, to the claims that Zimmerman was white, to the claims that white-on-black violence is anywhere near common (in reality, 80+% of violence is intra-racial-- white-on-white, black-on-black, etc).

He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins. Come on, this was widely reported.

Anyone who knows anything about Neighborhood Watch programs knows that the absolute, number 1 rule is do not confront someone that looks suspicious, call the police, but do not attempt to confront them. Number 2 rule? Do not carry a gun.

"Members should never confront suspicious persons..."

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons..."Neighborhood Watch Manual [usaonwatch.org]

The fact that Zimmerman was a part of the local Neighborhood Watch means that he had

Anyone who knows anything about Neighborhood Watch programs knows that the absolute, number 1 rule is do not confront someone that looks suspicious,...

That's wonderful. There is NO evidence that George Zimmerman ever confronted Trayvon Martin and some evidence that suggests that Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman (including the testimony of Rachel Jeantel). So, The first part of your argument is a fail. In addition, there is, again, no evidence that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to do that (note: the dispatcher did NOT tell him NOT to follow Martin, only that they did not need him

No, USAonWatch is managed by the National Sherrif's Association and organizes roughly 20.000 neighborhood watch programs. They have been around for 40 years. There is pretty much no one else in the "business" of organizing neighborhood watch programs.

"He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins."

In normal countries neighbourhood watch doesn't mean going round looking for trouble with a gun. It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious and phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it and why do you think that is? Precisely to avoid shit like this.

"Yes, heres the thing, a jury found that Martin WASNT innocent"

Wrong, it found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was guilty which

I completely agree. Do you know how hard it is to make a living as a mugger when you have to worry about people fighting back? And the damn women, they carry guns in their purses these days. Back in the day, you could put a knife to her throat, drag her in an alley and rape her, no questions asked. Now you're constantly worried about some bitch thinking she's the Kill Bill chick and wants to show some resistance. Since when is it worth my life to stop robbery or rape? Am I not a person too?

Zimmerman was patrolling a GATED community in which Martin himself also lived as far as I know. I don't like the idea of gated communities but if you live in one, you basically agree with neighborhood watches.

Zimmerman HAD the right to play cop given to him by everyone who choose to live in that GATED community, including Martin.

And Martin only lived there because he was a thug wannabe and had been kicked out by his parents.

It is clear where you loyalties lie, you believe Martin should be able to do what

"William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with the cause of African American rights, and thus an asteroid named after Trayvon Martin is perfectly appropriate."

So a teenager whom a jury said was shot in self-defense (or there was no convincing evidence otherwise) is perfectly appropriate? Might as well name the asteroid "Al Sharpton".

How about a black scientist, like George Washington Carver? Or Mae Jemison or Guion Bluford, since this is space and asteroids we're talking about? Maybe a Rosa or a Frederick or a W.E.B. might have done a thing or two for civil rights and African Americans?

“As I see it, the social fairness showed to Trayvon Martin was very sadly lacking.”

Oh, I don't know, dominating the cable news cycle for months on end, hundreds of thousands of people taking selfies wearing hoodies and national black leaders/celebrities calling for a Double Jeopardy trial and/or punishment for George Zimmerman seems to show some kind of social backing.

Why don't we start enshrining every person that gets shot in a bar fight next?

I clicked on that examiner link. I was greeted with 2 (that's T-W-O) banner ads at the top of the screen for a stupid Steve Buscemi show that I never got past the first episode of. These banners then expanded *themselves* to fill the entire screen, twice. I contracted them. I began reading the article. About one paragraph in, a video advertisement swooped in from the bottom and began playing itself. It had a little "X" at the top, so I clicked that X. As soon as I clicked the X, a popup advertisement appear

Regardless of the details of the case itself, it's pretty clear that Martin was a racist (he used racial insults against Caucasians). He does not deserve to have an asteroid named after him, and if the civil rights movement picks him as a symbol, it will only hurt their cause.

If these fools name some hapless piece of drifting interplanetary space debris "Trayvon" in their misguided attempt to glorify a dead, racist, drug-abusing, violent criminal thug, how long until there's an IGG funding drive for development of a "Zimmerman" missile to destroy it?

Kind of a long way to go (in multiple senses of the phrase) to get people interested in space again, isn't it?

I think these people have had far too much time on their hands for far too long.

So exactly what African American rights is it that William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with, and why are they any different than the rights any other person living in the US has? Is it the right to beat up someone because you find them creepy?? To pummel someone just because you think they are following you, even though they haven't made any overtly threatening moves? Simple because someone is a racist and thinks that if a light skinned person is following them the 'crackah' must be up to no good??

Or is it some other made-up rights that I'm not aware of???

It's only controversial to those that tried their best to turn it into a race thing instead of a self-defense thing. The racists that forced Florida to have a wasted trial with no real evidence for the prosecution just to appease so many racists. Those that want to ignore the evidence presented in court and play 'what if' games that don't use any facts at all but assumptions made my people who weren't even there.

Go ahead.. name your asteroid Trayvon. It will still be an insignificant speck of dust in the universe. Kind of fitting really... an insignificant asteroid named for someone that tried to kill someone else. That if he had lived could very well be in jail by now.

People aren't thinking any longer. They are reacting with emotion and parroting talking points. "Why are we in Iraq?" "Freedom!" "Because 9-1-1!" People seriously have no interest in facts or knowledge nor care to try to understand what's what and what's going on.

It has gotten past the point where I don't want to live on this planet any more. There is just no other planet to live on right now.

Trayvon Martin referred to his intended victim with the racists epithet, 'Creepy-Ass Cracker' before attacking him. George Zimmerman defended himself from the racist. Trayvon died because he was a racist thug on drugs.

Even though what the jury found was that George Zimmerman acted in Self Defense. Jury instructions aside. They did not find him innocent due to the stand your ground laws. They found that he acted in self defense, The same verdict would have come in states with out "Stand your ground laws".

Trayvon Martin was literally beating Zimmerman to death. Any hit of Zimmerman's head to the pavement--witnessed by one of the prosecution's witnesses--could have been his last moment alive, without Trayvon even needing to find the gun to use against him.

The fact that you are too stupid or ignorant to recognize that is obvious in the fact that you missed the_Bionic_lemming's point: if Zimmerman did not act, then he would be dead or badly injured by a thug or "bully", completely regardless of the t

"At first it was "What's going on," and no one answered,' " Good said, describing calling out to the men. "And then at that point the person on the bottom, I could finally see, I heard a 'help.' Then at some point I said 'Cut it out.' And then, 'I'm calling 911.' That's when I thought it was getting really serious."

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

He saw. I'll take the victim's word when the back of his head is bloodied alongside a swollen face, and an uninvolved party corroborates the story immediately following the incident. Trayvon did not have a mark on him, so it's pretty clear who was on the bottom given the visible, physical damage to Zimmerman.

If you are willfully blind to the evidence, then that's your own fault, but it's time that you stop spreading ignorant information. You may want Trayvon to be innocent, but absolutely nothing points to it, including his own offline and online antics and the prosecution's lead witness admitting that Trayvon used racial slurs immediately before the fight.

Trayvon was a bully actually. He was bragging in a facebook post about how he slapped a bus driver for something to the effect of looking at him wrong. When caught red handed painting graffiti, he was found with burglary tools and women's jewelry in his backpack by a school staff. Also, apparently the stuff he bought at the convenience store just before his death were for the purposes of making "Purple Drank".

He was let down by his parents for not raising him properly. He was let down by his communities lack morals. He was let down by societies glorification of "the Thug Life".

He never had a chance to become a decent man. Family, Community, Federal Government and the Press all conspired to turn him into a violent and irresponsible person who was taught to blame white males for every problem he saw.

Teaching of personal responsibility would have created a Trayvon that not only would have ne

I much prefer a world where you can be beaten to death, but if you fight back and save your life, the guy who was trying to kill you gets asteroids named after him and the president praising him only because of his color.

You're free to presume that, but I think the evidence is inconclusive at best. People around a lot of guns are people who feel threatened, some are more cautious, but some react to threats with aggression. Some will avoid confrontation because of how quickly they escalate, some will escalate more readily because the last one to escalate dies. You can spin whatever narrative you want but you need actual evidence.

Add these to the COUNTLESS other stories of "Rebels" and "Freedom fighters" who are roving in packs.. Capturing, sodomizing, and beheading Christians all throughout the ME and these are the people Obama wants to support. These a

Actually, he has said he wants to do none of those things, and instead only perform targeted missile strikes. As for the rebels, you are cherry picking the worse(it is okay, the media did too) to make broad generalizations. The reality is, there are thousands of rebel groups in Syria, most fighting Assad in a respectable way. A handful are terrorists are extremely brutal. A handful are fighting other rebel groups.Kinda silly to make the claim that Obama wants to fund baby killing terrorists when there are o

I feel like we're sinking deeper each and every time I find myself saying "We have just reached a new low in stupidity."

The feeling is correct. It's like reading out the altitude in a free falling elevator, you could never speak fast enough to keep pace with events...but the direction is certain and the conclusion will be no surprise...

Yes, let's name all of the asteroids after attempted murders who got justice. Nothing political or controversial about that.I'm looking forward to smoking some illegal drugs, putting on bulky clothing and going out an shoplifting some stuff, then attacking the first cracker that gives me a dirty look. All the evidence of my motivation can be suppressed, and I'll get a space rock named after me too.

Wow. I hope you realize your version goes a lot further than the court verdict.

The court found that there wasn't sufficient proof that Zimmerman initiated the fight, or that he didn't have reasonable grounds to fear for his life.

That's a long way from determining that Martin, initiated the confrontation, tried to kill Zimmerman, shoplifted (first I heard of this), or was going to smoke drugs that evening (irrelevant even if true).

There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the fight considering that Trayvon did not have a mark on him except the fatal gunshot wound.

All that the injuries show is that Martin was winning, and outside of Zimmerman's testimony we don't really have evidence that Martin started the fight either.

Considering that it was not until Zimmerman was being "ground pounded", quoting the prosecution witness testimony, it seems pretty obvious what happened here: Zimmerman was overzealous while following a suspicious person walking through his neighborhood, who confronted Zimmerman and then attacked him after not liking whatever response followed, if any.

Assuming that happened the response could be part of an initiation.

Had Zimmerman been looking to follow and kill a black guy, then he would have pulled his gun before the beginning of the fight, and he would have lost it after having his head repeatedly thrown against the pavement, which would have been Zimmerman's last moments alive on Earth because you do not bash someone's skull into pavement repeatedly to say hello.

Not many claim that "Zimmerman been looking to follow and kill a black guy". They claim he followed Martin for no reason, somehow instigated or didn't try to avoid the confrontation (knowing he had a gun), then shot Martin when his life wasn't really in jeopardy.

And really, especially with the other people around Zimmerman wasn't in realistic danger of being killed due to the ground pounding.

Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.

Martin was deserving of some community service and some counselling. He didn't deserve to die.

Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk.

Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.

It happens but as evidenced by the lack of dead MMA fighters it's not that common. And I'm not saying that a reasonable person wouldn't fear for their life, I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.

But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.

I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.

A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?

But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.

But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.

A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?

Reasonable enough to be scared? Definitely.

Reasonable enough to kill them. No.

But then again I could panic and I think I'd be perfectly justified in doing so, which is why it's probably a good thing I don't carry a gun.

You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.

OH REALLY? Willing to bet your life on the kindness and willingness of strangers, especially when they don't know who is in the right?

Actually the bystander effect doesn't apply here. It kicks in when there's a bunch of bystanders, none of whom have a clear responsibility to intervene, so none take the initiative to be the one person who steps out from the crowd. It's much different with a small handful of people.

You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.

Maybe. We don't know how aggressive or out of control Martin really was, that goes a long way to determining if Zimmerman's fear would have been rational or just panic. But I think it's unlikely that an unarmed Zimmerman would ha

"Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk."

Right, and getting your ass kicked and suffering brain damage is the risk you take when you stalk someone looking for confrontation despite being told not to by the police. It doesn't give you the right to kill them though, actually scratch that, judging by the court case I guess in America it actually does.